Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. KAMLESH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Kamlesh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 41739 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13131 (7 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41739 of 2006

Smt. Kamlesh and others vs. State of U.P. and others.

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Tyagi

Smt. Archana Tyagi

Counsel for the respondents : Chief Standing Counsel

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

By this writ petition filed as a public interest litigation, a mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to inquire the matter and direct the respondents to redevelop the pond in the Khasra no. 1726 for irrigation and other purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that private respondent nos. 6 and 7 have made a construction over the Government land without there being any sanction of the plan.

We have considered the submission and perused the records.

Although in the prayer direction has been sought to redevelop the pond but from the allegations in the writ petition it does not appear that the said plot has ever been recorded as pond. As far as the allegation that the constructions are situate in the public utility land, i.e. the road, it is for the development authorities/Nagar Panchayat to take appropriate action. In the representation which is Annexure-1 to the petition, the petitioner herself has stated that the plan has been sanctioned. Appropriate remedy, if aggrieved from the sanctioned plan, lies before the appropriate competent authority. The writ petition cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation and it is dismissed.

Dated:7.8.2006

RK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.